Round 32 - GMC Call for Grant Applications - Deadline is January 7

This thread is for applications for Rocket Pool’s December 7, 2025 - January 7, 2026 grants. Please only post grant applications in this thread. If you would like to discuss and/or ask questions about any applications you see in this thread, we ask that you do so in this separate forum thread which has been established for all community discussions related to this round of applications. Only those grant applications that are posted in this thread and timestamped by January 7, 2026 at 23:59 (11:59 PM) UTC will be considered. Any grants posted after that deadline will be carried over to the next award period.

This is the expected schedule for round 32:

  • Application Period (December 7 - January 7)
  • Scoring Deadline (January 20)
  • Final Voting Amendments, Discussion and Finalization (January 21 - 24)
  • Award Announcement (January 25)
Differences Between Grants and Bounties Grants are intended to be applied for by those who are wishing to carry out the work themselves. Bounties are open-ended goals that could be met by anyone, including those other than the proposing party. In other words, if I believed that Rocket Pool needed a fifty-foot paper mache orange rocket for publicity purposes and I wanted to be the one to built it, I would apply for a grant. If I instead thought Rocket Pool needed a fifty-foot paper mache orange rocket for publicity purposes but I wanted it to be open to whoever built it first to claim the reward (similar to a prize), then I’d apply for a bounty.

To guide you in your application, the GMC has established the following goals and the following scoring rubric:

GMC Goals

Grants, bounties, and retrospective awards should make it easier and/or more attractive to do one or more of the following:

  • become a node operator

  • operate a node, mint rETH

  • hold or use rETH

  • improve the quality of life for the protocol and its community.

Grants Rubric

When evaluating grant applications, the GMC takes into account the following goals:

  • If the application is successful, to what extent does it further the GMC goals?

  • To what extent can the application be feasibly carried out by the person(s) proposed to complete it?

  • If the application is successful, how large is the benefit to the protocol relative to the size of the proposed costs

Grant Application Template

Please copy paste the template below into a reply. Answer the questions there, feel free to remove or add sections based on relevance.

## Name of Grant

### What is the work being proposed?

### Is there any related work this builds off of?

### Will the results of this project be entirely open source ([MIT](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT), [GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html), [Apache](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0), [CC BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license or similar)? If not, which parts will not be, why, and under what license will they be published?



## Benefit

<please enter N/A where appropriate>

| Group | Benefits |
|---|---|
| Potential rETH holders | If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help people looking to stake ETH for rETH? |
| rETH holders | If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help rETH holders? |
| Potential NOs |  If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help people looking to run a Rocket Pool node for the first time? |
| NOs | If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help people already running a Rocket Pool node? |
| Community |  If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help the Rocket Pool community? |
| RPL holders |  If the grant is successfully completed, how does this help RPL holders? |

### Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals, would stand to benefit from this grant?



## Work

### Who is doing the work?

### What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?

### What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?

### How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?

### How will the work be maintained after delivery?



## Costs

### What is the acceptance criteria?

### What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much USD $ and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?

### Who will directly receive the payment? (Required — the GMC can only send grants directly to a recipient address and cannot accept invoices.)

### How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?

### What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?

### Have you already been compensated by the RP protocol in any way for this work?



## Conflict of Interest

### Does the person or persons proposing the grant have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the grant).

### Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

Rocket Rescue Node 2026 H1 Renewal

What work from the previous proposal was completed?

No major changes

What work from the previous proposal is ongoing or pending?

No ongoing work aside from maintenance.

What work was not originally planned, but completed, if any?

  • Some code changes to use multicall3 to improve rescue-proxy startup times (as mentioned in the previous grant)
  • Small changes to adapt to ethereum hardforks

What work is newly slated since the previous proposal?

No new work planned, except for some observability/metrics things @Snocones may or may not work on

Are the results of this project entirely open source (MIT, GPL, Apache, CC BY license or similar)? If not, which parts are not, and why not?

  • AGPLv3

    • rescue-proxy

    • guarded-beacon-proxy

    • rescue-api

  • MIT

    • rescue-ui
  • Closed Source

    • infrastructure

    • secrets

As a reminder, the infrastructure and secrets libraries are closed source, the former out of an abundance of caution, and the latter as a requirement. We don’t believe either of these to be a hindrance to a third party wishing to modify or run the service themselves.

Benefits - enter N/A where appropriate

What metrics can you share on the success of the project?

The dashboard remains viewable at https://stats.rescuenode.com/

At the time of writing, 7 node operators with 128 minipools are using the rescue node. Four solo stakers with 75 validators are connected.

Access has been requested 3544 times, 3320 times by Rocket Pool NOs and 224 times by solo stakers.

This corresponds to 167 solo stakers and 1208 node operators.

In less specific terms, how has this project improved the Rocket Pool ecosystem or benefited the Ethereum ecosystem?

We continue to believe the project offers a safety net which helps differentiate Rocket Pool from other staking protocols and attract node operators.

Team

Who has done the work, and have there been any changes to the team?

No changes to the maintainers:

  • Ken
  • Poupas
  • Patches
  • Yorick

No new contributors, but thank you to our past contributors (sno, trainface, et al) and collaborators (dmccartney, hanniabu, sleety)

How have the individual constituents of the team been compensated?

Maintenance continues to be pro-bono.

EthStaker pays the hardware costs and is in turn the recipient of the funds from the GMC.

How has maintenance been performed since the delivery of the project?

Sporadically, as needed, and pro-bono.

Payment and Verification

Have the acceptance criteria been met?

We believe so.

What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much RPL and over what period of time is the applicant requesting? Does this differ from the original approved amount?

In the days leading up to Pectra, we sunset our existing infrastructure and leased new hardware compatible with running supernodes. Since the rescue node can be used by anyone, it needs to custody all blob subnets. This meant upgrading to 4TB SSD baremetals.

Our operational costs are now $687.50 a month.

Is there a measurable Return on Investment for the project?

Please see previous applications for the cost/benefit analyses, which have not materially changed since the start of the project. I have still never observed the rescue node operating at a loss to the protocol.

What is the breakdown of spending on development for the original grant vs. maintenance?

100% of ongoing funds continue to be put towards reimbursing costs.

Conflict of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the grant have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the grant).

I can make a full list of my engagements in the ethereum / crypto ecosystems available to the GMC, but I have none to disclose that would impact my ability to work on the rescue node.

Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

No

Name of Grant

RocketPool App UI/UX Redesign

What is the work being proposed?

This grant proposes a comprehensive UI/UX redesign of the Rocket Pool App, with the goal of improving usability, clarity, and conversion for all core user groups, including:

  • Users looking to stake ETH via rETH

  • Existing rETH holders

  • New Node Operators (NOs)

  • Experienced Node Operators

  • The broader Rocket Pool community

The work focuses on user experience improvements rather than protocol changes, including information architecture, user flows, visual design, and frontend interaction patterns. The redesign will reduce cognitive load, improve onboarding, and clearly communicate Rocket Pool’s value proposition and mechanics.

Deliverables include:

  • UX research and user flow redesign

  • High-fidelity UI designs (desktop-first, responsive-ready, components/pages)

  • Clear separation and guidance for different user personas

  • Optional implementation-ready frontend specifications

Is there any related work this builds off of?

No

Will the results of this project be entirely open source ? If not, which parts will not be, why, and under what license will they be published?

Yes, all design outputs (including Figma files, design systems, UX documentation, and assets) will be released under a permissive open-source license, allowing the Rocket Pool community and contributors to freely reuse, adapt, and implement them.

Benefit

Group Benefits
Potential rETH holders Clearer explanation of rETH mechanics, benefits, and risks, simplified staking flow with reduced friction.
rETH holders Better UX for monitoring and interacting with the protocol
Potential NOs Reduced intimidation for non-expert users
NOs Faster access to key information and node-related actions
Community Improved perception of Rocket Pool as a mature, professional protocol
RPL holders simplified RPL staking flow with reduced friction.

Which other non-RPL protocols, DAOs, projects, or individuals, would stand to benefit from this grant?

  • ETH staking ecosystem participants

  • DeFi protocols integrating or supporting rETH

  • DAOs and institutions evaluating ETH staking options

Work

Who is doing the work?

The work will be done by me.

What is the background of the person(s) doing the work? What experience do they have with such projects in the past?

Graduated from Politecnico di Milano with a degree in Service Design, and has five years of UI/UX design experience in the web2 industry.

What is the breakdown of the proposed work, in terms of milestones and/or deadlines?

  • Milestone 1: Produce multiple UI design style explorations to evaluate and finalize the overall design direction.
  • Milestone 2: Align the redesign with the Saturn upgrade, completing and optimizing key features such as rETH request unstake and related user flows.
  • Milestone 3: Deliver high-fidelity Figma designs (Compoents/Pages), followed by review iterations and refinements.

How is the work being tested? Is testing included in the schedule?

Figma

How will the work be maintained after delivery?

About 1-2 month

Costs

What is the acceptance criteria?

  • Completion of all milestones
  • Delivery of open-source design assets, Figma

What is the proposed payment schedule for the grant? How much USD $ and over what period of time is the applicant requesting?

4500$, RPL

Who will directly receive the payment? (Required — the GMC can only send grants directly to a recipient address and cannot accept invoices.)

Me

How will the GMC verify that the work delivered matches the proposed cadence?

Public access to design files and documentation - Figma

What alternatives or options have been considered in order to save costs for the proposed project?

Focusing on design-only scope (no full frontend implementation)

Have you already been compensated by the RP protocol in any way for this work?

No

Conflict of Interest

Does the person or persons proposing the grant have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if any member of the GMC would benefit directly financially from the grant).

No

Will the recipient of the grant, or any protocol or project in which the recipient has a vested interest (other than Rocket Pool), benefit financially if the grant is successful?

No

Notice: This message marks the closing of the thirty-second (32) round of Rocket Pool grant applications. Any applications submitted after this will not be considered for this round. The GMC will announce the award recipients in a new thread here on the forums around January 25. The community will then have two weeks to issue any challenges before funds are disbursed.

Thank you to all who applied and thank you to everyone who has followed along. Anyone who would like to comment on existing applications is encouraged to do so in this thread.